Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: CNET News.comAhmadinejad says that while main solution for conflict in region is 'elimination of Zionist regime,' at this stage immediate ceasefire was needed to end fighting between Israel, Lebanon
Thanks for clearing that up, Mahmoud. As a member of the Zionist regime, I am so comforted by your concerns and the efforts that you go to on behalf of peace in the region.
He just wanted to prove that the quote by the French foreign minister "Iran is a stabilizing force in the region" was true.
#1 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 10:12 AM EDTReally makes you wonder when calls for the complete destruction of Israel are made in the same sentence as a call for cease-fire.
#2 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 10:51 AM EDTPersonally, I think that for those in favor of Israel's existence, this is one more reason to stand behind Israel right now in opposing an immediate cease fire, in favor of allowing Israel some more time in Southern Lebanon with ground troops and special forces (with IAF in search-and-destroy rocket launcher mode).
Think about it:
Yaakov, I think Iran would call for a ceasefire in order to appear like the rational middle, knowing they can discourage Hezbollah from accepting any sort of ceasefire if there were any chance Hezbollah might. Hopefully, though, no one will actually see them as that rational middle, but there are a lot of loonies in the world, just like Ahmadinejad.
Thing is that this alternative doesn't allow us to consider that Hezbollah might be weak.
Taking point 1 into consideration, Iran would only be calling for an immediate cease-fire if things were going pretty poorly for Hizballah right now, and if continued military action by Israel would be making it harder for Iran to accomplish Israel's destruction
Or for an opportunity for Hezbollah to regain some strength and weaponry.
Or that Iran has bigger fish to fry then Hezbollah right now and is interested in winning over Europe by demonstrating itself to be a capable caretaker of Middle Eastern Stability.
Remember - that nuclear showdown with the United States isn't played out yet. Iran still has favors to call in and chips to be played. If it can turn Europe against the US and the UK on this Israel/Lebanon issue it might just be able to assert itself as a regional superpower.
Or that Iran has bigger fish to fry then Hezbollah right now
I don't know about that. As you point out, the nuclear showdown with the US is still in the early stages. As long as world attention is focused on Israel/Lebanon, it goes right back on Iran. So Iran must have some pretty good reasons for wanting a ceasefire (since if the ceasefire would be implemented right away, it sticks Iran right back on the proverbial burner).
It's a good thing Iran and Venezuela are on good terms with one another. Two rational countries trying to bring about world peace.
#3 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:04 AM EDTThanks. I needed that. I haven't had that spontaneous a smile in a good thirty minutes or so. LOL
This is the same as saying Hamas'/Hezbollah's/Iran's destruction is the solution to the mideast crisis.
#4 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 11:10 AM EDTWell if you hold the view that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are all of equal standing in world affairs and rationality then I suppose you could perceive that analogy somehow applies.
I tend to hold Iran and Israel to a higher standard than terrorist groups.
No one wants to destroy Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist/paramilitary organisations, Iran is a country. Just thought I'd clear that up for you ;) Perhaps you were referring to the current political regime in Iran.
Iranian president: IRAN's destruction solution to Mideast crisis
Title fixed :)
#5 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 2:26 PM EDTI'd just like to point out that the
elimination of Zionist regime
does not necessarily equal the destruction of Israel, as in it does not imply that the people must be killed, or the infrastructure destroyed, just the government eliminated. Granted I know this is just another statement in a long line of threats to Israel from Ahmadinejad. Though some things seem to have been poorly translated. But regardless he's obviously verbally threatened Israel, if even indirectly, there's no doubt about that. And his motives are questionable, as is his sanity. But that's not the point.
The point is this article is attaching false implications to this particular quote. Unless you feel that Israel cannot exist without a Zionist regime at the helm of the government (i.e. no other governments would work for Israel). Or you feel there is no other way to remove the regime (democratically?) without destroying country.
Anyway, just wanted to make that point, it's a minor one, continue your bashing of Iran.
#6 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 3:04 PM EDTDestruction of Iraq and Afghanistan was a solution given by many people, probably the people most outraged by Ahmadinejad's suggestion. Does this mean that anyone who supported either war is racist? But they were dictators! That wasn't the reason given at the time, plus there's far too many of them. Wouldn't it be funny if the people displeased with Ahmadinejad's idea advocated the destruction of Iran's regime? That would be hilarious!
Note: I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, his ideas, or Iran's regime, Saddam, the Taliban, etc... etc...
#8 - Thu Aug 3, 2006 8:21 PM EDTDestruction? Source, please? Advocating regime change bears no resemblance to advocating the destruction of a nation
I think if Iran was going to go the peaceful route, they wouldn't be funding Hezbollah in order to promote their regime-changing operations.
That doesn't necessarily mean they want to destroy everything, but peaceful just doesn't seem like "President" Ahmadinejad's style. He sounds more like a psychopath just waiting to get his hands on a nuke in order to try it out.
@miss j
Destruction? Source, please? Advocating regime change bears no resemblance to advocating the destruction of a nation
I'm using it in the same context as the title...
@Matt Kennedy
I think if Iran was going to go the peaceful route, they wouldn't be funding Hezbollah in order to promote their regime-changing operations.
Who said they were?
The peaceful route, although that only applies to Iran's proxies, Iran itself does want peace for itself.
Doesn't Israel call for the complete dismantling of Hamas and Hezbollah as the solution to the conflict? Naturally each side in a conflict sees the destruction of the other side as the solution to the conflict.
#10 - Fri Aug 4, 2006 10:45 AM EDTThere's a big difference between calling for the destruction of terrorist groups outlawed by most nations (and in the case of Hezbollah, by the UN as well) and calling for the destruction of a state. I think you knew that, already.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
